How did you come to the conclusion that Zen teaches that the mind is non-abiding awareness?

Astus wrote:Let's look at it from another perspective. What is it one should learn in Zen? Saying that it's a "thing" or "art" is not a definition. What is Zen about? It is about seeing the nature of mind. What is the nature of mind? It is non-abiding awareness. How do you experience it? You don't attach to ideas and emotions. How can you not attach to them? You see them for what they are, impermanent mental phenomena.

The Great Way is not difficultIf only there is no picking or choosing--- Xin Xin Ming

Matt J wrote:How did you come to the conclusion that Zen teaches that the mind is non-abiding awareness?

"What is nonthought? If in seeing all the dharmas, the mind is not defiled or attached, this is nonthought. [The mind’s] functioning pervades all locations, yet it is not attached to all the locations."(Platform Sutra, ch. 2)

"Within continuing moments of thought one should not think of the previous [mental] realm. If one thinks of the previous thought, the present thought, and the later thought, one’s thoughts will be continuous without cease. This is called ‘fettered.’ If one’s thoughts do not abide in the dharmas, this is to be ‘unfettered.’ Thus it is that nonabiding is taken as the fundamental."(Platform Sutra, ch. 4)

"Q: Where does the mind dwell in its real abode?A: Dwelling nowhere is its real abode.Q: What is dwelling nowhere?A: It is the mind not dwelling anywhere or on anything.Q: What does "not dwelling anywhere or on anything" mean?A: Not to dwell anywhere or on anything means not to dwell on good or evil, existence or non-existence, within or without or on the middle, nor on concentration nor dispersion, and neither to dwell on the void nor on the non-void. This is the meaning of "not dwelling anywhere or on anything". Just this alone is real abiding. This stage of achievement is also the non-abiding Mind, and the non-abiding Mind is the Buddha Mind.Q: What is the non-abiding Mind like?A: The non-abiding Mind is not green, yellow, red or white. It is not long or short, nor does it come or go. It is not pure or impure, nor does it have birth or death. It is only deep and permanent stillness. This is the non-abiding Mind, which is also called the Original Body. The Original Body is the Buddha's Body, which is also called the Dharmakaya."(Ta-Chu Hui-Hai: Entering The Tao of Sudden Enlightenment)

"Now we are getting towards the end of the third period of five hundred years since the time of the Buddha, and most students of zen cling to all sorts of sounds and forms. Why do they not copy me by letting each thought gas as though it were nothing, or as though it were a piece of rotten wood, a stone, or the cold ashes of a dead fire? Or else, by just making whatever slight response is suited to each occasion? If you do not act thus, when you reach the end of your days here, you will be tortured by Yama. You must get away from the doctrines of existence and non-existence, for Mind is like the sun, forever in the void, shining spontaneously, shining without intending to shine. This is not something which you can accomplish without effort, but when you reach the point of clinging to nothing whatever, you will be acting as the Buddhas act. This will indeed be acting in accordance with the saying: 'Develop a mind which rests on no thing whatever.' For this is your pure Dharmakaya, which is called supreme perfect Enlightenment. If you cannot understand this, though you gain profound knowledge from your studies, though you make the most painful efforts and practise the most stringent austerities, you will still fail to now your own mind. All your effort will have been misdirected and you will certainly join the family of Mara. What advantage can you gain from this sort of practice?"(The Chün Chou Record in "The Zen Teachings of Huang Po", p. 61-62)

"Therefore, being with no place to dwell is the way of all Buddha activity. The Mind that does not abide anywhere is the Perfect Awakening, without understanding the Unconditioned Truth, even with much learning and diligent practice, one still does not recognize one's own Mind."(The Chung-Ling Record in "The Dharma of Mind Transmission")

"The mind of voidness and calm is a spiritual Knowing that never darkens. This calm Knowing of voidness and calm is precisely the mind of voidness and calm that Bodhidharma formerly transmitted. ... Knowing is no mindfulness and no form. Who is characterized as self, and who is characterized as other? When you are aware that all characteristics are void, it is true mind, no mindfulness. If a thought arises, be aware of it; once you are aware of it, it will disappear. The excellent gate of practice lies here alone. Therefore, even though you fully cultivate all the practices, just take no mindfulness as the axiom. If you just get the mind of no mindfulness, then love and hatred will spontaneously become pale and faint, compassion and wisdom [prajna] will spontaneously increase in brightness, sinful karma will spontaneously be eliminated, and you will spontaneously be zealous in meritorious practices."(Chan Letter in "Zongmi on Chan", p. 89)

"This awareness is true awareness, the same as empty tranquil awareness. It is also called "awareness of no-thought." If one has thought and awareness, one is in the state of common people; if one has no-though and non-knowing, one is in the state of the two vehicles; if one has no-thought, but with awareness, one is in the state of the Buddhas. No-thought is empty and tranquil [awareness], and is also called "non-abiding awareness." Because if one abides in something, it is comparable to a person entering into a dark room and not being to see anything. But, if one does not abide in anything, it is like sunlight and moonlight illuminating and making visible all varieties of things."(Yongming Yanshou: Profound Pivot of the Contemplation of Mind in "Integrating Chinese Buddhism", p. 177)

"People who cultivate nowadays belong to the Buddha's spiritual family. They rely upon the direct approach of the sudden school and, having developed firm faith, they straightaway understand that their own minds are perpetually calm and ever alert. Since they rely on this realization when they begin cultivation, even though they cultivate the manifold supplementary practices, they only regard thoughtlessness as their core and nonactivity as their foundation. Due to this thoughtlessness and nonaction, their practice is independent of sequence in either time or space and free of any element of discrimination between the absolute dharma and its phenomenal aspects [that is, immanent suchness]. Since their cultivation is complete, approaches to dharma as numerous as dust motes and the meritorious qualities developed on all the bhamis are also complete in the essence of their sublime mind, which is, accordingly, like the wish-fulfilling gem."(Encouragement to Practice in "Collected Works of Chinul", p. 109)

"Think of not thinking. Not thinking-what kind of thinking is that? Nonthinking. This is the essential art of zazen."(Dogen: Fukan Zazengi)

"Right at this moment, this single thought is itself unborn! Everything that manifests before you now are illusory and insubstantial - all of which are reflections projected from the true mind. Work in such a manner to crush away [all your deluded thoughts]. You should fixate [your mind] to observe where the thoughts arise from and where they cease. If you practice like this, no matter what kinds of deluded thoughts arise, one smash and they will all be crushed to pieces. All will dissolve and vanish away. You should never follow or perpetuate deluded thoughts. Master Yongjia has admonished, “One must sever the mind [that desires] continuation.” This is because the illusory mind of delusion is originally rootless. You should never take a deluded thought as real and try to hold on to it in your heart. As soon as it arises notice it right away. Once you notice it, it will vanish. Never try to suppress thoughts but allow thoughts to be as you watch a gourd floating on water."(Hanshan Deqing: Essentials of Practice and Enlightenment for Beginners)

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

People nowadays take the immediate mirroring awareness to be the ultimate principle. This is why Xuansha said to people, 'Tell me, does it still exist in remote uninhabited places deep in the mountains?'

The Great Way is not difficultIf only there is no picking or choosing--- Xin Xin Ming

Identifying "present awareness" as the final meaning, as the true self is still grasping, abiding and the view of self. As Wuzhu of the Baotang school often said, "At the time of true no-thought, no-thought itself is not." Also, clinging to a pure consciousness as reality creates the duality of pure and non-pure, thought and no thought. Non-abiding is not abiding in some blank mind but not grasping appearances. That's what emptiness means, and that's why emptiness and dependent origination are not different. Referring to the Heart Sutra, the problem is not that there are aggregates, but identifying with any of them as real is the delusion creating suffering.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Right. There are two principles. The first is absence and the second is presence. (Absence makes more sense than emptiness). So you get to understand absence and then you understand presence.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

I have no disagreement, I was wondering what your "position" was. A lot of people I've been around these days have been into awareness, which is the opposite of what my Buddhist teachers, past and present, have taught. The important disclaimer is that these are primarily Theravada and Zen teachers.

Perhaps we would then both agree with Baizhang:

Realizing that the present mirroring awareness is your own Buddha is the elementary good. Not to keep dwelling in the immediate mirroring awareness is the intermediate good. Not to make an understanding of nondwelling either is the final good.

The Great Way is not difficultIf only there is no picking or choosing--- Xin Xin Ming

Astus wrote:Let's look at it from another perspective. What is it one should learn in Zen? Saying that it's a "thing" or "art" is not a definition. What is Zen about? It is about seeing the nature of mind. What is the nature of mind? It is non-abiding awareness. How do you experience it? You don't attach to ideas and emotions. How can you not attach to them? You see them for what they are, impermanent mental phenomena.

I think you can take this a bit further. The Six Patriarch of the Chan school Master Huineng 慧能 (638-713) is said to have had a great awakening when hearing the following phrase from the Diamond Sūtra:

《金剛般若波羅蜜經》卷1：「應無所住而生其心」(CBETA, T08, no. 235, p. 749, c22-23)

“One should produce the mind which has nowhere to abide.”

The point here is that a mind which abides nowhere has not the means to further produce ideations (mental events or perceptual forms in the mind) which are the root of afflictions which perpetuate saṃsāra and consequently suffering. Mental events initiate afflictions such as anger and craving which further prompt action (karma) in a being, the maturation (vipāka) of which results both in continued saṃsāric existence (one's psychophysical existence being “old karma”) and sensations of suffering and ease. Suffering (duḥkha) ease (sukha) likewise facilitate further afflictions of anger in the former and craving in the latter. Hence by abiding nowhere the root source of the saṃsāric process is halted.

What grasping at ideations here refers to is otherwise known as “grasping at marks” (nimitta-grāha). Here this usually refers to reifications (samāropa). Reification is positing or affirming the existence of an inherently existent thing, idea, sensation or perception, when in reality there is no such thing to be found under analysis. This extends to perceived physical phenomena as well and is not limited to abstract mental events.

Having done away reification it is often also necessary to deal with the antonym of reification which in English might be called “diminishment” or “elimination”, whereby one asserts the non-existence of something (apavāda). The problem here is that the mind still grasps onto a perceived characteristic of non-existence of something, thus initiating further karma. This is still “tainted” (āsrava) action, whereby there is still intent involved in the affirmation of a non-existent or negated entity even if it is not conditioned specifically by anger or craving, hence the mind still does not abide nowhere.

Thus having ceased both reification and elimination the mind may abide nowhere and conditioned mental continuity will halt. Here even the mind is transcended.

In this sense it goes beyond grasping at impermanent phenomena or detachment, but halting the process of designated entities (prajñapti), whereby the vision of the unborn is brought about, i.e., realization of emptiness. Non-abiding in this sense is realization of emptiness.

Huineng position seems to be taking realization of emptiness as a goal. I wonder if you would share this view?

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Well the issue here is that if emptiness is taken to be a goal then it is also seen as being a future oriented result in that it is something to be realized. In this sense our future success or progress is dependent on sustaining or maintaining the realization and experience of emptiness. Wisdom here becomes the point to which a realization and experience of emptiness can be maintained. That is if we are not yet Bodhisattvas.For Bodhisattvas who have come into contact with true emptiness or genuine 'being' how could their realization of emptiness not also take into account the authenticity of ignorance? If they saw ignorance as something other and extraneous they would not be maintaining a view of emptiness and if they are making distinctions then they are lacking in wisdom - they would have a dualistic view. In that case what would be the difference between a bodhisattva and an ordinary being?So taking this logically, a genuine realization of emptiness for bodhisattvas also includes the realization of ignorance and wisdom as being equal. If this is the case then what would a bodhisattva have to do? And if bodhisattvas have nothing to do then what do we have left to do? It would then seem that to take the realization of emptiness to be the goal one must also accept that ignorance is not 'other'. If one accepts that ignorance is no different to wisdom then what are the consequences? Is a realization of emptiness really a worthwhile goal or aim in the sense that it is said to reveal 'genuine being' but actually does not?

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Andrew108 wrote:For Bodhisattvas who have come into contact with true emptiness or genuine 'being' how could their realization of emptiness not also take into account the authenticity of ignorance? If they saw ignorance as something other and extraneous they would not be maintaining a view of emptiness and if they are making distinctions then they are lacking in wisdom - they would have a dualistic view. In that case what would be the difference between a bodhisattva and an ordinary being?

Ignorance is the conventional idea of not knowing.

You should understand that there is conventional reality, where language is utilized, and ultimate reality where there are no discernable phenomena (thus no language).

So taking this logically, a genuine realization of emptiness for bodhisattvas also includes the realization of ignorance and wisdom as being equal.

Both are dependently originated, ergo empty of any inherent existence. They are conventional designations, projected from our side. Still, language must be utilized otherwise we will go nowhere.

If this is the case then what would a bodhisattva have to do?

Work towards Buddhahood.

And if bodhisattvas have nothing to do then what do we have left to do?

Suffer unless we do otherwise.

It would then seem that to take the realization of emptiness to be the goal one must also accept that ignorance is not 'other'. If one accepts that ignorance is no different to wisdom then what are the consequences?

The consequence is that you will continue to suffer.

Is a realization of emptiness really a worthwhile goal or aim in the sense that it is said to reveal 'genuine being' but actually does not?

Realization of emptiness does not reveal a "genuine being" because there is no "being" to be discerned ultimately.

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

"Parikalpita-svabhāva or the discriminating nature's true quality (tattvasya-lakṣaṇam) is the reification (samāropa) and elimination (apavāda) of person and phenomena. Having comprehended this nature, these attachments thus do not arise. This discrimination characteristic, person and phenomena are created by discrimination. If we rely on the view of the ultimate truth (paramârtha-satya), the person and phenomena are [seen as provisionally] existent and [this is] called the attachment of reification (samāropa). If we rely on the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), the person and phenomena are [seen as] non-existent and [this is] called the attachment of elimination (apavāda). If we completely understand this discriminating nature, then the two attachments of reification and elimination do not arise."

This is a bit different from how I explained it above, which is more in line with how it is presented in the Satyasiddhi-śāstra and by Jizang 吉藏 (Sanlun patriarch). However, these are all concerned with how beings reify and eliminate entities which then enables karma directed at objects as well as afflictions to arise. Existent or non-existent entities perceived in the mind are grasped and thus karma can be initiated.

This is a very important point to bear in mind when contemplating emptiness. One might negate the inherent existence of entities, but non-entities should not be attached to in the same light. Having negated existence, non-existence (which only stands relative to existence) is likewise negated. Having nowhere to stand like empty space, one then abides nowhere.

one cannot abide in emptiness, it is not satisfactory... though emptiness is the immanent nature of all it is still unsatisfactory.

one can only abide when there is nothing whatsoever in which to abide... a sort of letting go. this is true non abiding it is more of the heart than of the mind.

if i say nothing at all i mean it in an apophatic manner, not even nothing, nor nothingness, nor everything, nor anything... when one renounces all things the true nature ceases within and the dharma eye closes. later on the eye of the heart heart opens and it is the heart and not the mind that tells one not to worry. to just let go.

its like a boat floating on the ocean of emptiness. emptiness looses its importance when one just rests in the boat... nothing at all.

what do i know? nothing at all. in this place there is nothing at all in which to abide. not even nothing. when your heart grasps the significance of nothing at all you are in the boat floating on the infinite ocean of mind, or suchness. you let go of all your previous knowledge and experience and just enjoy the fruit... nothing at all.

in this place one is truly at rest.

some emphasise the importance of awareness over dharma nature. they say that it is awareness that percieves dharma nature, and every thing else we see. but this does not account for unconsciousness or deep sleep. others say it is the natural state, the ordinary mind that we all have... when we reify anything at all we cannot abide in non abiding. you have to let go of everything.

letting go of immanent nature and transcendent understanding we come to a place that is not a place, nor has ever been a place. we see that which is nothing at all to be seen, neither transcendent nor immanent, far beyond the ocean of mind or nature. nothing ''at all'' has no opposite, since it is nothing at all to be an opposite, nor has it ever being. it has no mind, no self, no body, no existence, it is not even ''not'.

nature can be opposed with icchantika, nature:no nature. to advance towards nature or icchantika is still an attainment, still a realization. what i am talking about is not an attainment, nor a realization. it is nothing at all. being nothing at all, how could we ever realize it? being nothing at all to be had; who lacks it? no one.

enlightenment... that is seeing the true nature of Mind. something Astus and others on this site clearly see. im just saying let go of it all and just breathe, dont forget to breathe, just be, nothing to worry about, just living with nothing at all to worry about. you cant rest in the natural state until you know that it truly doesnt matter.

if you see the nature of mind... fine, if you dont see the nature of mind... fine. theres no difference. nothing at all to realize. there never has been.until you can see the enlightenment of all beings, you dont yet have peace.

Buddha said : "this day, i and all beings attain enlightenment together''. its like that and only like that.

best wishes, Tom.

you can say exactly what you want. every word i have written is utterly pointless and without value, a complete waste of time. i bow before you my noble friends.

days gone by. the difficulties remain, but no longer concern for the enlightenment thorn.give me a mile and ill take you ten.this is easy.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

it seems to me that this is a very enlightening thread. it talks about awareness and also hints at detachment from awareness. one cannot remain in awareness all the time. we don't attach to awarenss as the ultimate, rather we detach from awareness, which returns us to emptiness and then emptiness back again to awareness. emptiness is awareness, awareness is form.

detachment from all concepts and all things returns us to awareness, detachment from awareness returns us to emptiness, detachment from emptiness returns us to awareness.

it seems to me that though everyone thinks of detachment, how many of us are able to detach from likes and dislikes, wants and fears, god and devil, Buddha and icchantika, gain and loss, fear and security, love and hate. knowledge and understanding.

is it the case that detachment is true love? does anyone here remember that Pai Chang Hui Hai in his extensive record says that awareness is ultimate, but that one should be able to detach from it. And that true emptiness is only arrived at when we drop emptiness, detach from emptiness. perhaps true love is only attained when we drop love.

is detachment the way to find an easier life, a life beyond good and evil, where such judgements have been dropped. a life of true love. where one is not afraid to say: "I love you", but practices detachment. detachment is emptiness, that much is certain and so if we practice it will it help our lives to become calmer and more fulfilled. there is moderation in all things, there must be moderation in detachment.

so awareness is emptiness and to live in detachment is to directly experience emptiness in our daily lives without attaching to awareness.

my apologies Astus if I implied that a mind without thought is unnecessary. Hui Hai also talks about this. without thought one becomes more aware.

best wishes, Tom.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.